ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF MEADOWS IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS

Transcription

1 ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF MEADOWS IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS December 2014 A report submitted to CalTrout and supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Purpose: to evaluate and prioritize meadows in the Golden Trout Wilderness for restoration.

2 Assessment and Prioritization of Meadows in the Golden Trout Wilderness Jacob Dyste, Julie Fair, Evan Reimondo and Luke Hunt Assessment and Prioritization of Meadows in the Golden Trout Wilderness. A report by American Rivers submitted to CalTrout and supported by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2

3 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 HISTORICAL SETTING... 4 Early Sheep Grazing, Sagebrush Increase, and Repair Efforts... 4 Recent Grazing Experiments... 4 METHODS... 5 Meadow Definition... 5 Assessment Methods... 5 RESULTS... 5 Current Meadow Area vs. Remote Delineation... 5 Headcut Mapping... 6 Meadow Area above Active Headcuts... 7 PRIORITIZING RESTORATION ACTIONS Prioritizing by Impacts from Active Headcuts Meadows with Incised Channels CONCLUSION REFERENCES APPENDIX 1: DATA SUMMARY FOR EACH MEADOW APPENDIX 2: SCORECARD DATASHEET INTRODUCTION Meadows of the Golden Trout Wilderness (GTW) are an extremely valuable component of the landscape, providing numerous benefits to society. Meadows provide diverse habitat including habitat critical to endangered species; they reduce peak flows during storms and spring runoff, recharge groundwater supplies, filter sediment, provide livestock forage, and are important sites for cultural and recreational use. Meadow streams of the GTW and surrounding areas of the Kern Plateau are the ancestral habitat for California Golden Trout and are a primary draw for anglers visiting the wilderness. Some of the largest meadows in the Sierra are found in the GTW. These meadows have been impacted by historic land uses, including the construction of water diversions (notably in Strawberry Stringer and Tunnel Meadow, [Pister 2003]) and grazing by sheep and cattle. These impacts have triggered restoration actions dating to the 1930 s, when the Inyo National Forest began stabilizing headcuts (Pister 2003). Since that time, hundreds of headcuts have been arrested, and the Inyo National Forest maintains a program to monitor, map, and repair headcuts in the GTW. 3

4 In 2012, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funded a partnership between CalTrout, Trout Unlimited, and American Rivers to evaluate meadow resources in the GTW and prioritize meadows for restoration. We hope the information we provide here will help partners and the US Forest Service work together to increase the pace and scale of meadow restoration in the GTW. HISTORICAL SETTING Early Sheep Grazing, Sagebrush Increase, and Repair Efforts Evidence from historical accounts and pollen and soil analyses all point to a reduction in meadow cover that began in the mid to late 1800 s. Between 1850 and 1900, there was also heavy sheep grazing in the area and a reported 200,000 animals were trailed across the Kern Plateau annually (Knapp and Matthews 1996). A number of sources report striking changes in vegetation that occurred between 1850 and In 1873, Clarence King, a member of the California Geological Survey, headed by Josiah Whitney, reported changes to the meadows since his visit 9 years earlier: The Kern Plateau, so green and lovely on my former visit in 1864, was now a gray sea... no longer velveted with meadows and upland grasses.... shepherds have camped everywhere... leaving hardly a spear of grass behind them. (King 1902, quoted in Kinney, 1996) Similarly, in 1894 the acting superintendent of Sequoia National Park reported: For years the Kern River country has been a sheep range, and enormous numbers of sheep are driven there annually. As a consequence the country is entirely denuded of grasses and bushes and presents a barren, uninviting aspect.... the whole country has, from a beautiful land once covered with nice and luxuriant grass, been turned into a desert. (U.S. Department of Interior 1894, quoted in Kinney, 1996) Using pollen from soil cores in Monache Meadow, Dull (1999) also reports a vegetation transition that occurred in the late 1800 s and persists today. Willow decreased significantly in abundance, and sagebrush became dominant. Likewise in Templeton and Ramshaw meadows, Odion et al. (1988) conclude that approximately 50% of the sage-covered terrace above the incised channel was once covered by sod-forming wet meadow vegetation and 60 to 70 percent of the basin area in these meadows would have been occupied by meadow vegetation before grazing. According to Berlow et al. (2002; 2003) this sage-covered terrace above the most recent channel incision was likely meadow floodplain within the last 150 years. Recent Grazing Experiments The Inyo National Forest constructed exclosures in several GTW meadows in 1983 and 1991, and these have provided comparison plots for a number of studies that show increased bank stability, stream shading, and golden trout abundance within the grazing exclosures (Knapp and Mathews 1996, Sarr 1996, Herbst et al. 2012). In 2001, grazing was suspended on two of the main allotments (Templeton and Whitney), and three studies have evaluated the meadow and riparian responses to rest from grazing. Herbst et al. (2012) observed that the rested allotments had significantly more bank stability, more bank vegetation and 4

5 riparian cover, lower width-to-depth ratios, coarser sediment, and greater richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Wiexelman (2011) compared 10-year vegetation trends and bank stability (greenline) estimates of desired condition on all four allotments and also concluded that ungrazed allotments have responded positively to rest from grazing. In addition, Weixelman (2011) concluded that greenline estimates of desired condition responded more quickly to changes in grazing management than did desired condition estimates based on meadow vegetation condition. Neither Weixelman (2011) nor Freitas et al. (2014) were able to detect changes in desired condition based on analyses of meadow vegetation alone. At both the exclosure and allotment scale, rest from grazing improved riparian and in-stream habitat. Rested allotments also had more diverse communities of aquatic invertebrates and golden trout abundance increased in areas where cattle were excluded. Farther from the channel, meadow vegetation condition did not vary appreciably across grazed and ungrazed allotments. METHODS Meadow Definition An existing mountain meadow is an ecosystem type that is dominated by herbaceous species and supports plants that use surface water and/or shallow ground water (generally at depths of less than 1 m). Woody vegetation (e.g., trees and shrubs such as alder and willow) may occur, and be locally dense, but are not dominant. Historical mountain meadows are areas that once supported meadow vegetation as above but have been altered either hydrologically or by disturbance or both. These alterations can be part of natural cycles or induced by human activity (from Weixelman, Cooper and Berlow, unpublished). Assessment Methods In August, 2013 staff from American Rivers and CalTrout assessed 33 meadows in the GTW using the Meadow Condition Scorecard (American Rivers, 2012). The scorecard is a rapid assessment method based on visual scores of six attributes: bank height, bank stability, prevalence of gullies, percentage of bare ground, encroachment by woody upland species, and vegetation condition. Vegetation condition is measured as the ratio of graminoid to forb cover (Wiexelman, unpublished correlation). In addition, we mapped headcuts, and measured width, length, and jump height. A checklist of anecdotal observations such as past restoration efforts, presence of aspen, grazing observations, and evidence of beaver was also completed. We used the Meadow GIS Layer created by U.C. Davis, which, for the Kern Plateau is drawn from the California Department of Fish and Game (2003) meadow delineation. The golden trout native range is taken from Stephens et al. (2004), and mountain yellow legged frog observation data was from U.S. Fish and Wildlife surveys in RESULTS Current Meadow Area vs. Remote Delineation Several studies (American Rivers 2012 and Viers et al., 2013) have shown that aerial delineations of meadows by remote sensing frequently overestimate meadow area by 100% or more, often because the delineation includes riparian stringers dominated by woody species including willow and alder. In the GTW, aerial delineations also greatly overestimated the area of meadow, as defined above 5

6 (groundwater dependent, herbaceous vegetation). For example the remote delineation of Big Whitney meadow includes broad sage terraces that are not meadow (Figure 1a). Likewise, in Mulkey and Templeton meadows, meadow vegetation is constrained to a narrow inset floodplain along the SF Kern River and side-slope areas that are fed by springs and hill slope runoff. The transition from meadow vegetation to sagebrush-dominated vegetation is often abrupt, and occurs at the steep slope between the sage terrace and inset floodplain (Figure 1b). This is a common pattern that we observed throughout the GTW. In some reaches, such as upper Templeton Meadow, the sage terrace was one to two feet above the inset meadow, while in other areas, such as Horseshoe meadow, the terrace is more than four feet above the inset meadow. To estimate the over-delineation of meadow area in the GTW, we delineated the current meadow area in the field by drawing the meadow extent onto aerial imagery. We compared this estimate of actual meadow area to the acres in the original delineation (Figure 1a). In the GTW approximately 11,000 acres were originally delineated as meadow. In reality, about 4,000 acres (37%) is composed of meadow vegetation (see Appendix 1 for data for each meadow). In the analyses below, we used the current delineation of each meadow, rather than the remotely-defined overestimate. (a) (b) FIGURE 1. (A) IN BIG WHITNEY MEADOW, THE REMOTELY DELINEATED AREA (RED) INCLUDES LARGE AREAS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY MEADOW (SEE MEADOW DEFINITION, ABOVE). THE CURRENT MEADOW AREA (GREEN) IS 39% OF THE REMOTELY DELINEATED AREA. (B) THE SHARP BORDER BETWEEN THE SAGE TERRACE AND LOWER INSET MEADOW IN TEMPLETON MEADOW. Headcut Mapping We mapped 130 active headcuts in 26 meadow reaches (Figure 2. Data in Appendix 1). Templeton Meadow was divided into three reaches and Mulkey Meadow was divided into two reaches, so 23 meadows contained active headcuts. Big Whitney meadow had 37 headcuts. Poision, Dry Creek, Brown, Horseshoe, Shaeffer and Templeton meadows all had between five and ten headcuts. The other meadows had fewer than 5 headcuts. There were nine meadows where we did not observe active headcutting: Ash Meadow, Strawberry Meadow, Freckles Meadow, Overholster Meadow, Round Valley Meadow, Grouse Meadow, Cold Meadow, Long Meadow, and McConnel Meadow. Some 6

7 meadows like Unnamed 2 and Unnamed 3 had large headcuts at the base of the meadow, while other meadows had headcuts only in the upper reaches that threatened a smaller area of meadow. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) FIGURE 2. HEADCUTS IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS. (A) BULLFROG MEADOW (B) SCHAEFFER MEADOW (C) REDROCK MEADOW (D) THE TOE OF UNNAMED 3 MEADOW IS VISIBLE ABOVE THE RED ARROW. THE RED ARROW MARKS THE LOCATION OF THE (E) HEADCUT BELOW UNNAMED 3 MEADOW. (F) UNNAMED 2 MEADOW. Meadow Area above Active Headcuts To evaluate the threat of headcutting to each meadow, we measured the meadow area at risk of erosion due to the presence of an active headcut downstream. To do this, we used ArcGIS to calculate the total area of current meadow above active headcuts (Figure ). 7

8 FIGURE 3. THE MEADOW AREA ABOVE AN ACTIVE HEADCUT (SHADED RED) AND HEADCUT LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN FOR BULLFROG MEADOW. CURRENT MEADOW DELINEATION IS IN GREEN. Overall there are 594 acres of meadow in the GTW above actively eroding headcuts. Mulkey, Brown, and Bullfrog Meadows all have over 50 acres of meadow above active headcuts. Big Whitney, Horseshoe, and Schaeffer Meadows have over 40 acres of meadow threatened by headcuts. 17 other meadows have at least one acre of threatened meadow above a headcut (Figure 4) In addition, the fraction of each meadow at risk of headcutting was calculated as the acreage above a headcut divided by the total acreage of the meadow. This allowed us to identify meadows that could be most impacted by headcuts, including ones that may virtually disappear if erosion continued through the meadow and sufficiently lowered the water table. Unnamed 2 and Unnamed 3 are over 98% threatened by active headcuts that occur at the base of each meadow. Four meadows Bullfrog, Redrock, Schaeffer, and Horseshoe have 40% or more of their meadow area above active headcuts. An additional 7 meadows have between 20% and 39% of their current meadow area threatened by headcuts (Figure 5). 8

9 FIGURE 4. FOR EACH MEADOW, THE MAP SHOWS THE ACREAGE OF MEADOW THREATENED BY ACTIVE HEADCUTTING, CALCULATED AS THE TOTAL AREA OF MEADOW UPSTREAM OF HEADCUTS. 9

10 FIGURE 5. FOR EACH MEADOW, THE MAP SHOWS THE PERCENT OF CURRENT MEADOW UPSTREAM OF AN ACTIVE HEADCUT. MEADOWS IN RED ARE >70% UPSTREAM OF A HEADCUT. MEADOWS IN GREEN ARE LESS THAN 0.5% ABOVE A HEADCUT. PRIORITIZING RESTORATION ACTIONS Conceptually, meadow restoration can be separated into actions which 1) protect the existing meadow, for example, by stabilizing headcuts and streambanks to prevent further erosion or 2) repair existing damage through channel modification, grading, revegetation, etc. The two are clearly linked, because damaged, downcut channels cause headcutting where tributaries erode to meet the elevation of the downcut stream. The converse is also true: headcutting can be stopped by raising the elevation of the streambed. That said, repairing a meadow with an incised stream is often a much larger effort than repairing headcuts, and meadow restoration in the GTW has focused on repairing headcuts as well as managing or excluding grazing (see Historical Setting, above). 10

11 We decided to prioritize meadows by considering the potential effects of further erosion by the active headcuts currently present. That is, we prioritize headcuts by estimating future impacts if no protective action is taken. We separately identified meadows where the channel is incised or eroding; these sites are candidates for repair. Where incised channels and priority headcuts co-occur, we suggest that restoration designs attempt to simultaneously treat both impacts. Prioritizing by Impacts from Active Headcuts To prioritize meadows of the GTW for headcut repair, we identified meadows with a large proportion of meadow threatened by headcuts. We further narrowed this list by identifying meadows with speciesbased conservation priorities, namely meadow with observed mountain yellow legged frog populations and/or golden trout present within their native range (Stephens, McGuire, and Simms 2004). WE FIRST IDENTIFIED MEADOWS WITH ACTIVE HEADCUTS ( Table 1). These meadows are ranked by the percent of threatened meadow habitat in each meadow and highlighted where golden trout and mountain yellow legged frogs occur. If we consider meadows with 30% or more of their current area threatened by headcutting, 48 headcuts threaten 382 acres of meadow. In the GTW, a total of 130 headcuts threaten 594 acres of meadow. Number of Headcuts Threatened Meadow Acres Above Headcuts Unnamed 2 Meadow 2 100% 11 Unnamed 3 Meadow 2 98% 22 Bullfrog Meadow 3 61% 50 Redrock Meadow 1 54% 18 Schaeffer Meadow 6 48% 42 Horseshoe Meadow 7 43% 45 Salt Lick Meadow 3 40% 11 Poison Meadow 10 39% 8 Stokes Meadow 2 39% 28 South Fork Meadow 1 39% 11 Brown Meadow 8 31% 52 Mulkey Meadow 3 31% 84 Bear Meadow 1 27% 8 Big Dry Meadow 4 22% 16 Dry Creek Meadow 9 19% 28 Big Whitney 37 18% 47 Gomez Meadow 2 8% 6 Templeton Meadow 5 8% 22 Volcano Meadow 1 7% 7 Little Whitney 3 6% 5 Tunnel Meadow 1 6% 6 Ramshaw Meadow 2 3% 15 Groundhog Meadow 3 3% 1 11

12 TABLE 1. MEADOWS THREATENED BY HEADCUTS (SEE TEXT). MEADOW NAMES IN BOLD TYPE HAVE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT PRESENT. UNDER LINED MEADOW NAMES INDICATE MEADOWS WHERE MOUNTAIN YELLOW LEGGED FROGS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. A TOTAL OF 130 HEADCUTS THREATEN 594 ACRES OF MEADOW. To prioritize headcuts for treatment, we focused on meadows that support golden trout within their native range (Stephens, McGuire, and Simms 2004). This criterion identifies 329 acres threatened by 70 headcuts. To this list, we would add Redrock and the two Unnamed meadows that are each >50% threatened by one or two headcuts. The resulting priorities are shown in table 2. Preserving these meadows would entail stabilizing 75 headcuts and would protect 380 acres of meadow. Number of Headcuts Threatened Meadow Acres Above Headcuts Unnamed 2 Meadow 2 100% 11 Unnamed 3 Meadow 2 98% 22 Bullfrog Meadow 3 61% 50 Redrock Meadow 1 54% 18 Schaeffer Meadow 6 48% 42 Salt Lick Meadow 3 40% 11 Stokes Meadow 2 39% 28 South Fork Meadow 1 39% 11 Mulkey Meadow 3 31% 84 Big Whitney 37 18% 47 Templeton Meadow 5 8% 22 Volcano Meadow 1 7% 7 Little Whitney 3 6% 5 Tunnel Meadow 1 6% 6 Ramshaw Meadow 2 3% 15 Groundhog Meadow 3 3% 1 TABLE 2. PRIORITY MEADOWS FOR RESTORATION INCLUDE MEADOWS WITHIN THE HISTORIC GOLDEN TROUT RANGE THAT CONTAIN HEADCUTS (BOLD). IN ADDITION, 3 MEADOWS THAT DO NOT DIRECTLY SUPPORT ANCESTRAL GOLDEN TROUT POPULATIONS ARE >50% THREATENED BY 1 OR 2 HEADCUTS. THE THREATENED MEADOW PERCENTAGE IS CALCULATED AS THE AREA OF MEADOW ABOVE A HEADCUT DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL MEADOW AREA. UNDERLINED MEADOW NAMES INDICATE MEADOWS WHERE MOUNTAIN YELLOW LEGGED FROGS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED (U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 2011). Meadows with Incised Channels Headcut-based prioritization identifies meadows at risk of declining condition. However a focus on headcuts does not consider the current condition of meadows and resulting restoration needs. As described above, the meadows of the GTW were damaged by past land uses and in many cases, the impacts persist (Figure 6). Meadows have incised channels with inset floodplains, unstable banks, and a network of gullies, which resulted from past incision of main channels and downcutting of tributaries. Meadows with incised channels are shown in Table 3. The details corresponding to numeric scores are given in Appendix 2. Briefly, a score of 2 or less corresponds to: bank heights 2-4 feet high; unstable 12

13 banks across >20% of the reach; and gullies with a combined length >50% the length of the meadow. Restoring these meadows is likely more complex than armoring headcuts to prevent their movement, but we hope that efforts to improve channel conditions will be considered in these meadows. (a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 6. INCISED CHANNELS OCCUR IN MANY MEADOWS. (A) ROUND VALLEY MEADOW (B) MIDDLE REACH IN MULKEY MEADO. (C) MIDDLE REACH IN TEMPLETON MEADOW. LOGS WERE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO STABILIZE BANKS. (D) LOWER RAMSHAW MEADOW. Bank Height Bank Stability Gully extent Mulkey Middle Reach Round Valley Meadow Templeton Middle Reach Horseshoe Meadow Brown Meadow Poison Meadow LowerRamshaw Meadow Big Whitney Meadow Strawberry Meadow TABLE 3. MEADOWS THAT SCORED LOW ON CHANNEL-CONDITION METRICS. BANK HEIGHTS OF 2 OR 1 INDICATE 2 TO 4 FEET HIGH BANKS OVER 50% OF THE MEADOW, AND>4 FEET HIGH OVER LESS THAN 25% OF THE MEADOW. BANK STABILITY OF 2 OR 1 INDICATED MORE THAN 20% OF THE BANK WAS UNSTABLE. GULLIES OF 2 OR 1 INDICATED A COMBINED LENGTH OF GULLIES AT LEAST HALF THE LENGTH OF THE MEADOW. 13

14 Two meadows are noteworthy for their extensive floodplains and apparent recovery from past incision. In both cases dams raised the base elevation of the channel and engaged a large floodplain. The dams in Ramshaw Meadow are constructed by beavers, while at the toe of Templeton Meadow the dam is a concrete fish barrier. The excellent meadow conditions in Lower Templeton and Upper Ramshaw meadows indicate that raising the channel elevation a few feet can restore an extensive area of meadow floodplain (Figure 7). Because meadows of the GTW are in remote wilderness locations, meadows with beaver populations, such as Ramshaw, may have the highest restoration potential, using existing technology (Pollock et al. 2012). Monitoring meadow condition above and below the beavereffected reach of Ramshaw Meadow would be a productive next step. (a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 7. (A) BEAVER DAM IN RAMSHAW IS FILLED WITH SEDIMENT. (B) SEDIMENT TRAPPED BY THE TEMPLETON FISH BARRIER IN 1980; BARRIER IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PHOTOGRAPH FROM (PISTER, 1993) (C) MEADOW FLOODPLAIN IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THE TEMPLETON FISH BARRIER (D) THE STREAM BED IS VISIBLY RAISED BY THE TEMPLETON FISH BARRIER. CONCLUSION In the GTW, overgrazing in the late 1800 s coincided with stream incision and sagebrush encroachment into large areas of former meadow (Odion et al., 1988; Dull 1999; Berlow et al., 2002). Most meadows 14

15 of the GTW are much smaller than remote delineation indicates because remote estimates include large sage terraces. In fact, meadow vegetation is usually limited to a narrow inset floodplain that averages just over one third (37%) the size of the remotely-delineated area. Since the 1930 s meadow restoration has focused on armoring headcuts, and many stabilization structures exist in the wilderness. Still, 130 active headcuts threaten 594 acres of meadow in the GTW, and two meadows are almost entirely (>98%) threatened by headcuts that occur in their lower reaches. We suggest a list of priority meadows for restoration that focuses on meadows with active heacuts that contain golden trout within their ancestral range. To these golden trout meadows, we also add three meadows that are >50% threatened by one or two headcuts. Five of these meadows are also known to support mountain yellow legged frogs. Four of these meadows have channels with either unstable banks, high banks, or an extensive network of gullies. We acknowledge that headcut repair will likely continue as the top priority for meadow restoration in the GTW. Our goal is therefore two-fold: 1) to accelerate headcut repair by identifying top priorities and 2) to encourage restoration that also improves channels that have been impacted by prior land use activities. We know that future restoration projects will be selected on the basis of multiple opportunities and constraints. We hope the data we provide and summarize in Figure 8 will enable partners with the US Forest Service to find common ground and accelerate the pace and scale of meadow restoration in the GTW. 15

16 FIGURE 8. MEADOWS IN THE GOLDEN TROUT WILDERNESS WITH HEADCUTS (RED), IMPACTED CHANNELS (HASHED), AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (SHADED YELLOW OR BLUE). 16

17 REFERENCES American Rivers Evaluating and Prioritizing Meadow Restoration in the Sierra. Berlow, E. L., C. M. D Antonio, and S. A. Reynolds Shrub Expansion in Montane Meadows: The Interaction of Local-Scale Disturbance and Site Aridity. Ecological Applications 12 (4): Berlow, E. L., C. M. D Antonio, and H. Swartz Response of Herbs to Shrub Removal across Natural and Experimental Variation in Soil Moisture. Ecological Applications 13 (5): Dull, R. A Palynological Evidence for 19th Century Grazing-Induced Vegetation Change in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 26 (4): Freitas, M.R., L. M. Roche, D.Weixelman, and K. W. Tate Montane Meadow Plant Community Response to Livestock Grazing. Environmental Management, 1 8. Herbst, D. B., M. T. Bogan, S. K. Roll, and H. D. Safford Effects of Livestock Exclusion on in- Stream Habitat and Benthic Invertebrate Assemblages in Montane Streams. Freshwater Biology 57 (1): Kinney, W. C Conditions of Rangelands before In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Vol. 2. Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews Livestock Grazing, Golden Trout, and Streams in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California: Impacts and Management Implications. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16 (4): Odion, D. C., T. L. Dudley, and C. M. D Antonio Cattle Grazing in Southeastern Sierran Meadows: Ecosystem Change and Prospects for Recovery. Plant Biology of Eastern California. White Mountain Res. Station, Univ. Calif. Los Angeles, Pollock, M. M., T. J. Beechie, and C. E. Jordan Geomorphic Changes Upstream of Beaver Dams in Bridge Creek, an Incised Stream Channel in the Interior Columbia River Basin, Eastern Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32 (8): Sarr, D. A Riparian Livestock Exclosure Research in the Western United States: A Critique and Some Recommendations. Environmental Management 30 (4): Stephens, S.J, C. McGuire, and L. Simms Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the California Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita) Tulare County, California. California Department of Fish and Game, USDA Forest Service,,and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Viers, J. H., S. E. Purdy, R. A. Peek, A. Fryjoff-Hung, N. R. Santos, J. V. E. Katz, J. D. Emmons, D. V. Dolan, and S.M. Yarnell Montane Meadows in the Sierra Nevada. Weixelman, D Report on Condition and Trend of Meadows and Streambanks In the Golden Trout Wilderness. USDA Forest Service. 17

18 APPENDIX 1: DATA SUMMARY FOR EACH MEADOW Data for each meadow sorted by the % threatened meadow. These data are available in excel format from or Luke Hunt: lhunt@americanrivers.org. Bank Height Bank Stability Gullies # of Headcuts Current Meadow Area Acres Above Headcuts Percent Meadow Threatened Meadow Golden Trout Present Golden Trout Present w/in Native Range MYL Frog Present Unnamed 2 Meadow % 100% No No No No Unnamed % 98% No No No No Bullfrog Meadow % 61% Yes Yes No Yes Redrock Meadow % 54% Yes No No No Schaeffer Meadow % 48% Yes Yes No No Horseshoe Meadow % 43% Yes No No Yes Salt Lick Meadow % 40% Yes Yes No No Poison Meadow % 39% No No No Yes Stokes Meadow % 39% Yes Yes No No South Fork Meadow % 39% Yes Yes No No Brown Meadow % 31% No No No No Mulkey Meadow Upper % 31% Yes Yes Yes Yes Mulkey Meadow Lower % 31% Yes Yes Yes Yes Bear Meadow % 27% No No No No Big Dry Meadow % 22% No No No No Dry Creek Meadow % 19% No No No No Big Whitney Meadow % 18% Yes Yes Yes No Gomez Meadow % 8% No No No No Templeton Middle % 8% Yes Yes Yes No Templeton Upper % 8% Yes Yes Yes No Currently Grazed 18

19 Bank Height Bank Stability Gullies # of Headcuts Current Meadow Area Acres Above Headcuts Percent Meadow Threatened Meadow Golden Trout Present Golden Trout Present w/in Native Range MYL Frog Present Templeton Lower % 8% Yes Yes Yes No Volcano Meadow % 7% Yes Yes No No Little Whitney Meadow % 6% Yes Yes No No Tunnel Meadow % 6% Yes Yes Yes No Ramshaw Meadow % 3% Yes Yes Yes No Groundhog Meadow % 3% Yes Yes No No Strawberry Meadow % 2% Yes Yes No No Death Canyon Meadow % 0% No No No No Mulkey Meadow Center % 0% Yes Yes Yes Yes Round Valley Meadow % 0% Yes No No Yes Ash Meadow % 0% No No No No Long Meadow % 0% No No No No Cold Meadow % 0% Yes No Yes No Freckles Meadow % 0% Yes Yes No No Grouse Meadow % 0% No No No No McConnel Meadow % 0% No No No No Overholster Meadow % 0% Yes Yes No No Currently Grazed 19

20 APPENDIX 2: SCORECARD DATASHEET Meadow Name Date : / / MM DD YYYY GPS Location:. N. W GPS Datum (e.g., WGS 84, NAD 27) Elevation (ft) Slope ( )_ County Landowner USGS Quad Name Observers: 7.5 or 15 (circle one) CONDITION CATEGORY Parameter Natural Condition Slightly impacted Moderately Impacted Heavily Impacted 1. Bank Height in Main Channel (measured in the riffle). Little or no channel incision, Banks 0-2 feet high along >95% of the channel length. Bank heights of 2-4 feet along less than 25% of the channel length; 0-2 feet elsewhere.. Bank heights of 2-4 feet along more than 50% of channel length; higher than 4 feet along less than 25% of channel length. Bank heights > 4 feet along more than 25% of channel length. Note if sections of channel have banks 0-2 feet high. Score: Second Channel (if present): Bank Stability <5% of bank length is unstable. 5-20% of bank length is unstable % of bank is unstable Score: Second Channel (if present): Gullies/ditches outside of main channel No gullies or ditches outside of the main channel Ditch or start of a gully outside of the main channel. Combined length of all gullies & ditches is less than 1/10 th meadow length. Combined length of all gullies and ditches up to 1/2 of meadow length >50% of bank is unstable. Combined length of all gullies and ditches is greater than 1/2 of meadow length. Score: Vegetation Cover Graminoids account for % of the area covered by vegetation 50-75% graminoid cover Forbs dominate % graminoid cover. Forbs dominate. <25% graminoid cover. Score: Bare Ground Bare ground covers less than 5% of the meadow area. Bare ground covers 5-10% of meadow area Bare ground covers 10-15% of meadow area. Bare ground covers > 15% of meadow area. Score: Conifer or Upland Shrub Encroachment No upland shrub or conifer encroachment. Raised, topographically distinct areas may have upland species present, but not the meadow surface. Few encroaching upland species; <10% of total meadow area Encroaching upland species cover 10-20% of total meadow area Encroaching upland species cover >20% of total meadow area Score: Total Possible Points Total/Possible 20

21 Additional Observations: 1. Yes No Evidence of conservation or restoration efforts (check dams, stabilized headcuts, exclosure fencing, etc.) Photo Numbers: Description: 2. Yes No Headcut present in meadow? Number of headcuts. Describe the headcuts (Photo number, jump height, width, length, potential for movement. GPS or record location on map): 3. Yes No Fish Observed? 4. Recent Old None Evidence of beavers? Describe 5. Yes No Aspen present in or adjacent to meadow? 6. Yes No Accessible by vehicle? 7. Grazing observations. Check all that are present: Trails Stubble Dung in channels Hoof prints on banks 8. Human impacts. Check all that are present in the meadow: Trail Evidence of OHV use Road Corral Building 9. Adjacent land use. Check all that are present within 200 yards of meadow: Culvert Bridge Road Building 10. Gopher disturbance covers % of meadow area (from toe-point transects). 11. Willow, alder and aspen cover % of meadow area. 12. Comments on ease of/ barriers to restoration (e.g., are impacts localized or disbursed throughout meadow, access, adjacent land use)